Tuesday, September 18, 2012

“Strong Language" in Fiction, Drama, and Film by Donn Taylor

I had the opportunity to meet Donn Taylor at an ACFW banquet many years ago. Since then, I've been blessed to hear him speak at several conferences and am always impressed by his dry wit and sparkling use of the English language. 

He's just released a new action adventure, Deadly Additive, and I had the privilege to preview it before it's released. It's gritty, exciting, and suspenseful -- just what a military thriller should be. And it doesn't have one cuss word. How did he do it? Here's Donn's thoughts about "strong language." ~ Angie

© 2000, 2008, 2012, Donn Taylor
Every writer must decide whether he needs to use words that are euphemistically described as "strong language"—"cusswords" and gutter language. These "four-letter words" so dominate fictional and video conversations today that these words often are the dialogue.

I guess I've heard them all. And I've put a good bit of thought into their place, if any, in my writing. So I've come to reject the most common justifications of using these words in fiction, drama, and film.

The usual justification is a claim of "realism." First, it’s claimed that because people actually talk that way, realistic fiction must accurately report their words. Second, it’s claimed that four-letter words bring us closer to “real life” than other words.

Neither claim can withstand examination.

The first confuses "realism" with literalism. Fiction is not real life: it’s an artifice creating the illusion of real life. So if the writer must report people's words literally, what excuses him from including all other elements of life? Must every fictional day begin with the hero shaving or the heroine applying eye shadow?

Thus, if "realism" does not justify literal inclusion of other elements in fiction, it does not justify literal inclusion of specific words.

Nor can the claim that four-letter words are closer to "reality" withstand questioning. Many uses of those words are, to put it mildly, figurative. Perhaps is once was amusing to attribute bisexual reproductive capability to inanimate objects. But if so, the idea is now so clichéd that it's no longer humorous.

And on representing reality, let's consider the so-called "f-word." The early English (probably Anglo-Saxon) from which it descends was a savage language appropriate to those savage times. Then, perhaps, the word may have accurately described physical relationships between men and women. But many cultural changes have altered that reality.

One change was the twelfth-century invention of romantic (courtly) love, popularized by Eleanor of Aquitaine and Chrétien de Troyes. And in the 1590s, Edmund Spenser synthesized various love traditions into an ideal combining the romance of courtly love with the intellectuality of Platonic love and a dash of physicality from Ovid—all justified by marriage, one of the seven sacraments of the church. Spenser's synthesis held general acceptance until about 1900, when it was eroded by naturalistic philosophy and Freudian psychology.

The point for "realistic" fiction is this: if the "f-word" today accurately describes the physical relationship between a man and woman, it does so only because the couple is immune to the cultural experience the past millennium.

So if customary justifications cannot withstand examination, the real reasons for using "strong language" must lie elsewhere. Conflict is basic to all good fiction. “Strong language” helps lazy writers gain the appearance of conflict without the hard work of creating genuine conflict, which is always generated by a story’s narrative structure. In other words, "strong language" substitutes for genuine creativity.

Profligate use of such language will always be chic, of course. But as screenwriter Morrie Ryskind put it, "The chic are always wrong."
Donn Taylor led an Infantry rifle platoon in the Korean War, served with Army aviation in Vietnam, and worked with air reconnaissance in Europe and Asia. Afterwards, he completed a PhD degree at The University of Texas and taught English literature (especially Renaissance) at two liberal arts colleges. His novels The Lazarus File andRhapsody in Red have received excellent reviews, and he has also authored Dust and Diamond: Poems of Earth and Beyond. He is a frequent speaker at writers’ conferences such as Glorieta and Blue Ridge. He and his wife live near Houston, Texas, where he continues to write fiction, poetry, and articles on current topics.

Deadly Additive
To soldier-of-fortune Jeb Sledge it seems like a simple job: Rescue an heiress and her journalist friend Kristin Halvorsen from their kidnapping by Colombian guerrillas and collect a sizable paycheck. But Kristin has other plans. After stumbling onto a mass of dead bodies, she won’t leave Colombia without the proof she needs for the story of a lifetime. While she and Jeb wrangle over her obstinacy, they discover a hidden factory where the guerrillas build a new and deadly type chemical weapon for the international black market. Their discovery triggers a raid on the factory, followed by a desperate search through the Caribbean and the U.S. to prevent a catastrophic attack by weapons the factory has produced. But who is behind that attack, and what are the planned targets? Finding out brings Jeb and Kristin again into peril for their lives.

9 comments:

  1. Thank you, Mr. Taylor! I'm heartily sick of "strong language" and am not happy that some so-called Christian writers are beginning to think it's okay to add it to their writing. Thank you for holding the line on this. I'm headed to Amazon now to check out your book. It sounds like the kind of story I enjoy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Points well taken, Donn. I wholly agree!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you, Clari and Mary. I stand by my comment that lazy writers use bad language to give the appearance of conflict rather than doing the hard work of building it into the story's structure.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bless you, Donn. A courtly gentleman always.

    I find it easy enough to camouflage curses in my writing without having to resort to pseudo words. The bad guys and even some of the good guys often think in expletives, but if we're creative, we don't have to hear them or read them, do we? Encouraging writers to be creative instead of lazy is always excellent advice.

    I hear writers use the same excuses you mentioned when I tell them Wayside won't publish work that splashes in the gutter. Several have gone off in a huff. Fine. If they wish to be of the culture in back-slapping bad form, then they have that option. Fortunately for us, we still wield the power of the purchaser, don't we?

    ReplyDelete
  5. As always, Donn, you reflect realism as it is. I agree, good writing is not enhanced by foul words, but it shows the hand of a weak writer.

    ReplyDelete
  6. With my writing hat on, I have had people cussing in most books I have written, bad men cuss. However I show them doing it, say they are doing it, may even comment on how well they do it, but I have never used a single word. People know the words, they don’t have to be reminded. With my agent hat on, I don’t represent work with profanity in

    ReplyDelete
  7. As a writer I have had people cussing in most books I have written, bad men cuss. However I show them doing it, say they are doing it, may even comment on how well they do it, but I have never used a single word. People know the words, they don’t have to be reminded. As an agent I don’t represent work with profanity in

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks for the kind comments, Normandie, Regina, and Terry.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Greetings, Donn. Our father always said strong language just showed someone's lack of vocabulary. Well done, thou good and faithful author.

    ReplyDelete

We'd love to hear your thoughts! Please leave comments. We'll moderate and post them!